Planning appeals Peter Ford Head of Development Management Planning Committee Training – 30 th July 2015

What is a planning appeal?  If an applicant is unhappy with the decision made by the Planning Authority they can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate who will independently assess the decision  Normally applicants appeal against refusal, but they can appeal against a condition  Only applicant can make an appeal, not third parties  Planning application or enforcement action

Time limits to appeal Householder appeals 12 weeks Other appeals 6 months Enforcement notice 28 days

Written representations Householder appeals service  Designed for Householder applications e.g. extensions, garages, minor alterations etc.  Electronic fast track appeal. No opportunity for representations from others unless requested by Inspector, but interested persons can withdraw earlier comments  Inspector visits site unaccompanied unless access issue. No discussion of merits

Written representations Standard written representations  Council sends relevant background documents e.g. officer report, Planning Committee minute etc.  Both sides can send further information if necessary  Other interested persons can send further representations  Both sides can comment on new representations  Inspector visits site and may ask appellant and Officers to be present. No discussion of merits

Hearings  Start with exchange of information as with written representations  A public hearing with the main parties  Any interested person welcome to attend and participate  The Inspector identifies the issues for discussion based on the evidence and representations made  Less formal than a Public Inquiry, but face to face discussion rather than exchange of statements  No need for legal representation  Normally no cross examination  Site visit either for debate or factual information

Public inquiries  Interested parties may be formally represented by legal advocates  Detailed timetable set  Statement of common ground prepared so that inquiry can focus on main differences. This statement prepared jointly by Council and appellant  Statement of case by both parties

Statistics  In 2014/15 all the appeals that reached a conclusion were decided by Written Representations.  There was also a Public Inquiry which was still ongoing at the end of 2014/15.

Challenging a decision made by Inspectorate  Inspectorate has power to correct simple errors that would not change substance of decision  High Court challenge within 6 weeks  Complaint about Inspector

Role of Councillors – Ward Councillors  Can send representations as part of any type of appeal except Householder  Can attend hearings or public inquiries in support or against appeal  Free to raise any issues they feel appropriate without fear of costs

Role of Councillors – Planning Committee  Main role is support decision of Planning Committee when it is a Committee overturn  For delegated items can act as Ward Councillors if you wish  Beware of costs if justifying Planning Committee decision

Costs applications  Costs can be awarded for any type of appeal  Separate from the decision  Costs can be for full or partial  Inspector does not fix the actual amount. To be negotiated or through courts  New legislation will mean costs can be claimed against other statutory consultees e.g. Historic England, Environment Agency etc.

Costs – examples of unreasonable behaviour / procedural  Late submission or failure to provide statement of case  Introducing new ground of appeal, or issue reason for refusal  Introducing fresh and substantial evidence at a late stage  Withdrawal of appeal or a reason for refusal  Failure to attend (including site visit)

Costs – examples of unreasonable behaviour / procedural Appellants at risk  Failure to produce requested information at application stage, but does so at appeal (so refusal reason no longer sustained)  Repeat appeal without changed circumstances  Proposal clearly contrary to Development Plan  Ignoring national policy  Refusing to enter into a planning obligation or to provide one in appropriate terms  Unreasonably introducing substantial new evidence

Costs – examples of unreasonable behaviour / substance of case  Council at risk  Failure to produce evidence to substantiate every reason for refusal  Where there are vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact unsupported by any objective analysis  If an overturn, to show reasonable planning grounds and produce relevant evidence  Failure to give proper consideration to technical advice  Failure to demonstrate, on design issues, a clear understanding of context

Costs – examples of unreasonable behaviour / substance of case  Ignoring national policy e.g. NPPF  Not following well established case law  Refusing on basis of local objection only  Failure to consider if conditions could make scheme acceptable  Refusing a renewal application where no new circumstances  Imposing a condition that does not comply with 6 tests  Requiring a planning obligation that does not meet CIL test  Unreasonably refusing pre-app negotiations or to provide reasonably requested information